These articles always make a big deal over small increases... same with vinyl. Sure, the numbers are slightly up, but prices keep rising a lot. At this point, all we can hope for is that film keeps being made by someone and can be done so within reason. It'll never be mainstream again.

It was never going to last even if were economically viable. The process isn't good for the environment.

That's true. The K-14 process is reported to be very polluting. I never found out exactly what chemicals are responsible for this, but the Kodak rep who used to pester my former place of employment assured us it was really nasty and they braced for some possible consequences.

I don't quite get the theory about measuring the time spent processing digital images against the cost of purchasing, developing and scanning film and seeing the film option as better value. Personally I don't want film to go away and any increase in usage is great but this article is a fair bit of hyperbole in my opinion. Until the mainstream picks it up (unlikely) and starts using it it will remain a niche product. And what about the infrastructure required to support it ... there is no facility within twenty kilometers of me that can develop a roll of film. Home developers are not going to support the level of sales required to make the industry boyant ... it will need more than that.

I don't quite get the theory about measuring the time spent processing digital images against the cost of purchasing, developing and scanning film and seeing the film option as better value. Personally I don't want film to go away and any increase in usage is great but this article is a fair bit of hyperbole in my opinion. Until the mainstream picks it up (unlikely) and starts using it it will remain a niche product. And what about the infrastructure required to support it ... there is no facility within twenty kilometers of me that can develop a roll of film. Home developers are not going to support the level of sales required to make the industry boyant ... it will need more than that.

The very attraction of film for me is that I can home develop it. I have done so for the last 30 or more years and the magic is still there. I am a tactile hands on kind of guy and digital just leaves me cold. The nearest film developing facility is always going to be wherever I happen to be, and it doesn't get any more convenient than that !

The very attraction of film for me is that I can home develop it. I have done so for the last 30 or more years and the magic is still there. I am a tactile hands on kind of guy and digital just leaves me cold. The nearest film developing facility is always going to be wherever I happen to be, and it doesn't get any more convenient than that !

We are the lucky ones but what about the dewy eyed hipster who has just bought a Nikon F from eBay ... do they learn what we know or do they bite the bullet and pay the price for their developing and scanning needs?

We are the lucky ones but what about the dewy eyed hipster who has just bought a Nikon F from eBay ... do they learn what we know or do they bite the bullet and pay the price for their developing and scanning needs?

Good point Keith. I hope they do what we did and start off using commercial d&p until the real bug bites and they then realise how much they are missing by doing that. We can but hope and help where needed ....

We are the lucky ones but what about the dewy eyed hipster who has just bought a Nikon F from eBay ... do they learn what we know or do they bite the bullet and pay the price for their developing and scanning needs?

they'll pay someone to do it for them as they won't have the time for it with all their kombucha home brewing.

While it is technically true that films are a physical form of storage of images that can last for a long time if correctly stored I find the argument this makes film superior (also made in the article that formed the basis of this thread) a bit misleading. Because the assumption that they will be correctly stored is a big "if". And of course physical storage is only half the problem. Access is in some ways even more problematic -stuff gets lost 'cos no one knows what is there!

Truth is, I know that 99.9% of my film based images were either thrown out already or are stored in a box in a garage where I never look at them. Because correct storage is problematic. One day, probably when I am dead, they will be thrown out too most likely sight unseen. Films are very bulky and inconvenient to store and unless carefully cataloged (itself a slow and difficult task so usually never undertaken properly) are difficult to view.

More over, usually there is only one copy of the image kept - the original negative or maybe the print. Which makes it vulnerable to loss by fire, flood etc. What goes for my personal store of images goes much more for images made by big firms who may have millions of images. So how do organizations like Time Life deal with this - they digitize their film based images. Images digitized and put into the public digital domain will last for much longer are randomly accessible by anyone given access and are also infinitely replicatable without quality loss.

Maybe this cannot exactly be said for images on someone's home PC which is itself susceptible to loss unless backed up but that still does not negate digital's other benefits described above.

BTW much is often made of the argument that as technology moves forward digital images saved in todays common formats may no longer be viewable. This argument is also made in this article/thread. This is an argument of someone who does not understand digital technology. Has no one heard of conversion software? Surely if that ever were to happen, someone will write an app that can be run over the images in the old, archaic format to update them into the new format. It is a trivial thing to do if the data is intact in the old format. Not only that, the conversion will certainly be done in bulk and at high speed, something that is never possible with film. After all I have done exactly this kind of thing with scores of DVDs I own in order to have the convenience of storing them on a hard drive to access and view on my smart TV after converting from .vob files to .avi files. And of course such conversion software for images is already available to convert proprietary (Nikon, Canon etc) RAW files to .JPG or even to convert between RAW file types such as from .NEX to .DNG files.) ITS NOT AN ISSUE!

There is a place for film images along side digital and if people want to shoot film good luck to them, they have my sincere best wishes. But truth is its a tiny niche and likelier will become more so over time. Meanwhile digital technology will just go on getting better and more accessible to the masses.

Maybe this cannot exactly be said for images on someone's home PC which is itself susceptible to loss unless backed up but that still does not negate digital's other benefits described above.

BTW much is often made of the argument that as technology moves forward digital images saved in todays common formats may no longer be viewable. This argument is also made in this article/thread. This is an argument of someone who does not understand digital technology. Has no one heard of conversion software? Surely if that ever were to happen, someone will write an app that can be run over the images in the old, archaic format to update them into the new format. It is a trivial thing to do if the data is intact in the old format. Not only that, the conversion will certainly be done in bulk and at high speed, something that is never possible with film. After all I have done exactly this kind of thing with scores of DVDs I own in order to have the convenience of storing them on a hard drive to access and view on my smart TV after converting from .vob files to .avi files. And of course such conversion software for images is already available to convert proprietary (Nikon, Canon etc) RAW files to .JPG or even to convert between RAW file types such as from .NEX to .DNG files.) ITS NOT AN ISSUE!

There is a place for film images along side digital and if people want to shoot film good luck to them, they have my sincere best wishes. But truth is its a tiny niche and likelier will become more so over time. Meanwhile digital technology will just go on getting better and more accessible to the masses.

It probably doesn't matter anyway, since the vast majority of digital images have likely already been lost/abandoned. The thing that I find depressing about digital photography is how many people will grow up with practically no record of their life, despite how many photos they've taken/had taken. Because the majority of people never print them or back them up. They get posted on a website or emailed to relatives, and then forgotten about. And then they're gone. In a decade or two, they may as well have not taken any in the first place.

You are correct - those and other slow selling emulsions are no more and we me miss them all. Back in the days of yore, I never shot any Kodak Tech Pan even though I always wanted to. Now I no longer have the chance to give Tech Pan a shakedown cruise. :-(

However: Let us not overlook the fact that B&H currently offers 206 options in rollfilm, while Freestyle Photo currently offers 171 options in rollfilm. That doesn't exactly sound like film as a whole is gasping its last breath...

__________________The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.

I'm honestly getting tired of these repetitive stories. I mean really, who cares ? We use film and that's all that matters. It comes. It goes. We still shoot film until the last man standing comes knocking. Are we that insecure that we need to trumpet every 'film is on the rebound' story ?

I'm honestly getting tired of these repetitive stories. I mean really, who cares ? We use film and that's all that matters. It comes. It goes. We still shoot film until the last man standing comes knocking. Are we that insecure that we need to trumpet every 'film is on the rebound' story ?

Couldn`t agree more.
I too fail to see the point of such articles other than for marketing purposes .

I'm honestly getting tired of these repetitive stories. I mean really, who cares ? We use film and that's all that matters. It comes. It goes. We still shoot film until the last man standing comes knocking. Are we that insecure that we need to trumpet every 'film is on the rebound' story ?

I think it's always written by someone who feels they have discovered something. The unique taste of millions.

Film is a niche item. No doubt about that. I shoot far more megapixels than film. However my Nikon DSLR is only a computer that takes pictures. When one uses an SRT101, M3 or Retina one has to be a photographer. Film and ancient mechanical cameras help maintain photography skills. My film comes from Freestyle and is processed by Dwaynes in Kansas.

Traditional floodlights, I noticed, have disappeared around town here over the last couple of years. Replaced by traditional looking fixtures that have a quarter size flat "dot" in them that put out a thousand watts of light. Technology eventually eats everything. I'm glad film is still having its moment. Would be sad to see it completely disappear.

One thing I've noticed in the last few months is a rise in the bid prices for camera gear. Could just be cyclical, but every once in a while I'll run across someone who is just getting into film photography, and sound serious about it, asking about where to find good cameras.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.